Jump to content

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 6 June 2016 (Substing templates: {{scite}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 23, 2015
Decided June 18, 2015
Full case nameJohn Walker, III, Chairman, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, et al., Petitioners v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., et al.
Docket no.14–144
Citations576 U.S. ___ (more)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.

The Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans sought to have a specialty license plate issued in the state of Texas. The request was denied prompting the group to sue, claiming that denying a specialty plate was a First Amendment violation.[1]

Opinion of the Court

The majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, relied heavily on the Court’s 2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which stated that a city in Utah was not obliged to place a monument from a minor religion in a public park, even though it had one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The court ruled that refusing the minor monument was a valid expression of government speech which did not infringe on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.[1]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, arguing that specialty license plates are more commonly regarded as a limited public forum for private expression, consisting of "little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages". Therefore, rejecting the design basically amounts to viewpoint discrimination.[2]

Charleston shooting

In part because of the proximity in time of the Supreme Court's decision (June 18, 2015) with the Charleston church shooting (the evening of June 17, 2015), the decision was discussed in the media in relation to a controversy which arose in response to the shooting. The massacre was directed at nine African-American churchgoers at one of the oldest black churches in the United States. One of the victims, the Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney, was a member of the South Carolina Senate. The suspected shooter, Dylann Roof, was found to have been depicted in images with Confederate flags, including one with a Confederate flag on a license plate. At the time of the shooting, the Confederate battle flag flew over the South Carolina State House.

As an example of Walker's relevance to the controversy, on June 23, 2015, following the massacre at Charleston, three state governors—Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (a Democrat), Pat McCrory of North Carolina (a Republican), and Larry Hogan of Maryland (a Republican) announced plans to seek discontinuation of their state's Confederate-flag specialty license plates.[3] The governors cited the Supreme Court's decision in Walker in support of their position.[3]

Prophetically but coincidentally relevant to the controversy, Associate Justice Alito, writing for the dissent, discussed the meaning of the Confederate flag to different social groups:

The Confederate battle flag is a controversial symbol. To the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans, it is said to evoke the memory of their ancestors and other soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. To others, it symbolizes slavery, segregation, and hatred.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Liptak, Adam (18 June 2015). "Supreme Court Says Texas Can Reject Confederate Flag License Plates". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-06-19.
  2. ^ "Slip opinion" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  3. ^ a b Jess Bravin, Governors Seek to Curb Confederate Flag License Plates: Moves follow Charleston mass killing, Supreme Court ruling, Wall Street Journal (June 23, 2015).
External audio
audio icon Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., Supreme Court Oral Argument, 03/23/15


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walker_v._Texas_Division,_Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans&oldid=724040091"